Igor Antunov wrote:Let's be a little more honest here. Most recently a particularly unstable member of the right was provoked by bat wielding hooligans. Tomorrow? Who knows. But expect responses and reactions every once in a while. Extremists invariably respond to other extremists. They feed off each others actions.

"Lets be more honest"

Are you gonna be left wing or right wing next week

Hong Wu wrote:The most recent right wing event was a guy previously diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and that was the first one in a long time, whereas we are seeing alt-left or Islamist violence against police, statues, peaceful protesters, random conservative-looking people or just random people almost daily.

Please link me the indication that this man was a schizoprhenic.

And while you're at it, would you show me what the right is doing to assist the mentally ill? This is indeed a deep passion of mine and since it suddenly seems to be an interest of yours I'm curious what your views are.

None of those twelve words captures it but I think simply "Decent" is it. Or what basic "good human being" is. I try to be that.

Meanwhile you mock immigrants and left wingers and right wingers and apparently lack all conviction and even though you're an immigrant to your country you mock them. So tell me where your convictions are. You admire China and Russia but you do not live in either, you live in Australia, a liberal democracy which is defended and built by us terrible SJWs, and I strongly suspect you live off your daddy's money these days while you're toying around with that game or not.

Lexington is correct to bring this up in a lot of ways, and I do respect what he's saying.

This being written, I think that Bulboa Jones needs to be acknowledged here as well. There are different types of violence and conditions of violence as well.

The state uses violence, of course. Lexington kind of pushes this away as something that happens outside the borders, but acknowledges that it does happen. And it happens within our own borders too. The last big time it happened, in my opinion, was well within living memories when the FBI conspired to shoot and kill Fred Hampton, and then used their resources to tear the black community apart again. Famously they also tried to get MLK to kill himself and his family maintains that he was shot by the FBI too--which, let's admit, if didn't happen is still consistent with how the FBI deals with leftist dissidents that get enough sway.

There really hasn't been a leftist movement of note since then.

Anarchists are a breed of violence that is not helpful in the least. While I'm sympathetic with them moreso than the liberal state, the push against them is predictable and--as someone that sometimes has to clean up after their shit--often not unjust in the eyes of virtually everyone.

Socialists though, generally propose violence as a counter to liberal violence. We are a very far way from a legitimate socialist, let alone that movement entering a phase of using violence. Lexington is correct to point out that for the moment we socialists are essentially LARPing in some ways. However, this is because the use of violence is legitimized for us via the conditions of the working class. This is exactly why someone like Fred Hampton was killed by the FBI, it is a violence to be used more sparingly, with calculation, and to build a majority movement. This is my standard line with individual terrorism and Marxism, if it helps to clarify:

Marx wrote:This latest Fenian exploit [an act of individual terrorism] in Clerkenwell is a great folly. The London masses, who have shown much sympathy for Ireland, will be enraged by it and driven into the arms of the government party. One cannot expect the London proletarians to let themselves be blown up for the benefit of Fenian emissaries. Secret, melodramatic conspiracies of this kind are, in general, more or less doomed to failure.

Lenin wrote:First, that party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or, it might be more correct to say: was unable) to understand the need for a strictly objective appraisal of the class forces and their alignment, before taking any political action. Second, this party considered itself particularly "revolutionary", or "Left", because of its recognition of individual terrorism, assassination—something that we Marxists emphatically rejected.

Lenin wrote:The Congress decisively rejects terrorism, i.e., the system of individual political assassinations, as being a method of political struggle which is most inexpedient at the present time, diverting the best forces from the urgent and imperatively necessary work of organisation and agitation, destroying contact between the revolutionaries and the masses of the revolutionary classes of the population, and spreading both among the revolutionaries themselves and the population in general utterly distorted ideas of the aims and methods of struggle against the autocracy.

Lenin wrote:Terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of intellectuals, who lack the ability or opportunity to connect the revolutionary struggle and the working-class movement into an integral whole. It is difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never believed, that this is possible, to find some outlet for their indignation and revolutionary energy other than terror.

Lenin wrote: At a time when the revolutionaries are short of the forces and means to lead the masses, who are already rising, an appeal to resort to such terrorist acts as the organisation of attempts on the lives of ministers by individuals and groups that are not known to one another means, not only thereby breaking off work among the masses, but also introducing downright disorganisation into that work.

We, revolutionaries, “are accustomed to huddling together in timid knots,” we read in the April 3 leaflet, “and even [N. B.] the new, bold spirit that has appeared during the last two or three years has so far done more to raise the sentiments of the crowd than of individuals.” These words unintentionally express much that is true. And it is this very truth that deals a smashing rebuff to the propagandists of terrorism. From this truth every thinking socialist draws the conclusion that it is necessary to use group action more energetically, boldly, and harmoniously. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, conclude: “Shoot, elusive individual, for the knot of people, alas, is still a long way off, and besides there are soldiers against the knot.” This really defies all reason, gentlemen!

Trotsky wrote:But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.

Che wrote:It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing forces well known for his cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings on an increase of reprisals, including deaths.

Castro wrote:Terror has always been an instrument of the worst enemies of Mankind bent on suppressing and crushing the peoples’ struggle for freedom. It can never be the instrument of a truly noble and just cause.

Connolly wrote:Here, then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation – the complete control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National Government.

However, this is all a false-equivalency. As noted, the socialists are very far from being a faction, let alone having a program, let alone applying that program, let alone speaking for the masses, let alone applying a defence of the masses; let alone applying this defence physically.

The right, however, has none of these scruples.

I would suggest that one of the reasons that Bulboa Jones and I are more sensitive to this is because of the Malheur Terrorist Takeover. In our state, armed rightwing extremists took over a Federal instillation and held the local community hostage.

In that thread I thought I might be a little extreme when I suggested the Feds were going to bend over backward to accommodate the rightwing terrorists as much as possible and make sure that the goals were met. It was, after all, a rightwing call for the public' land to be carved up and handed over to wealthy individuals and corporate interests.

And, sure enough, the Republican Party immediately adopted the cause, and the Democrats in charge used an extremely light touch in ending the situation. Even in Democratic Portland the judge only allowed one count of intimidating federal employees to be used against the terrorists; and the prosecutors were not allowed to bring in federal employees in order to make the case that they were intimidated. So the rightwing terrorists walked out free men.

In short, for the good Mr. Jones and myself, this isn't an academic question of whether left wing violence and rightwing violence is sort of the same in rocking the boat.

There is no left wing violence to speak of, and rightwing violence has been--and is currently being--legitimized by the state to be used against us. And it's hard not to be concerned that it's in possibly the most radically left wing areas of the country* that the radical rightwing militias being legitimized by state and federal authorities.

So you will, I hope, forgive me and Mr. Jones for being a little less worried about the left taking action and more worried about what the right is currently doing in conjunction with the liberal state.

*politically, again, no violence has been proposed and there has been no break with the Democratic Party

In a romantic sense? Nothing, nobody. I'm no ideologue extremist. I would only defend my friends and family if directly threatened with physical violence. This was true of my father in the midst of civil war, it is true of me. aka decent people.

There is nothing decent about wanting to punch people for their political beliefs. Nothing decent about toppling offensive statues or burning offensive books or about silencing offensive speakers in public.

It's ok to try to fool others with such weak calls to action over spilt milk-they are free agents they can decide; but it's just sad when you start fooling yourself with this post-modernist nonsense.

Meanwhile you mock immigrants and left wingers and right wingers and apparently lack all conviction and even though you're an immigrant to your country you mock them. So tell me where your convictions are. You admire China and Russia but you do not live in either, you live in Australia, a liberal democracy which is defended and built by us terrible SJWs, and I strongly suspect you live off your daddy's money these days while you're toying around with that game or not.

Australia, like all successful countries (Russia and China included-their periodic downs were created by the very SJW's you promote) were built by realists, rationalists. Post-Modernists can't build anything of value. They can only co-opt, maneuver for a short time then destroy it. This infestation is a timely example of that.

I should ask you where your convictions lie? Certainly not with the notion that leads to sustained betterment of your own polity's population. Of course you want to import more Islamists. It means more opportunities for you to be able to punch people on the basis of what they say in response. I doubt you care about the migrant either. They're just useful to you. You're in it for your politics, which to you are absolute and universal. Sure, you can call that decent. I would call it signalling your virtues for short-term self validation. Because nobody is going to benefit from this long-term. Not even you. Feels over reals.

I mock certain immigration policies. I am 100% behind responsible, highly vetted immigration. We only got into Australia because both my parents have technical degrees. Predictably, we are a success here, not because we were simply allowed here, but because we worked our asses off, because we brought the strengths of our culture with us. High qualifications are not a guarantee, but they are a sign of a responsible entity that can accomplish things. It's the best way to gauge new arrivals. To filter them. For now it is the only way.

Can you say the same about the recent 5,000 Syrian arrivals in Sydney's Liverpool? Crime rates have sky rocketed. Ironically it is successful migrant businesses that are suffering from these policies. Among them highly established Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Indian and Lebanese families. They are bearing the brunt of this idiocy, and from there the ripples spread across the entire city.

The kind of immigration you promote, isn't immigration. It's criminality. Incitement to poverty, political and social polarization. Destruction of social cohesion.

How's that canal in Nicaragua going?

Evidently better than the content of your post which I just napalmed without even trying.

Igor Antunov wrote:In a romantic sense? Nothing, nobody. I'm no ideologue extremist. I would only defend my friends and family if directly threatened with physical violence. This was true of my father in the midst of civil war, it is true of me. aka decent people.

And no, this is not in " a romantic sense" this is in a very literal sense and the fact that you have to hem and haw about it is telling. If the Nazis are coming, which side are you on?

Igor Antunov wrote:There is nothing decent about wanting to punch people for their political beliefs. Nothing decent about toppling offensive statues or burning offensive books or about silencing offensive speakers in public.

I suspect you've never had someone grab you hard by the arm and spit in your face and call you a faggot. [url=https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=167890]That's kind of a revelation, personally.[/quote]

I don't take it lightly either but I also suspect I have a much stronger appreciation for the rule of law and the virtues of democracy than you do, mr "not alt right and admires China and Russia".

By the way, how do homosexuals like me fare in those two countries you like for their political beliefs?

Igor Antunov wrote:It's ok to try to fool others with such weak calls to action over spilt milk-they are free agents they can decide; but it's just sad when you start fooling yourself with this post-modernist nonsense.

Speaking of post-modernist nonsense and obfuscation, you still haven't precisely told me who you are willing to die for and who you are willing to kill. I mean politically.

It's a very clarifying question. Very not postmodern. But then you're alt-right and you don't know it and you're very confused about it it seems.

Igor Antunov wrote:Australia, like all successful countries (Russia and China included-their periodic downs were created by the very SJW's you promote) were built by realists, rationalists. Post-Modernists can't build anything of value

Oh, wonderful. I see you've found a new word - "postmodern." Give me your thoughts on Derrida and Sartre, I'm sure you've read at least the wikipedia article.

Igor Antunov wrote:I should ask you where your convictions lie? Certainly not with the notion that leads to sustained betterment of your own polity's population. Of course you want to import more Islamists.

"import Islamists" like we're importing slaves, of course.

I really like halal food. It's tasty. Why not?

I live in NYC. We had the largest single Islamist terrorist attack in the history of the world happen downtown.

And yet THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET ALL THE WAY TO AUSTRALIA freaks the fuck out over this. And it was a tragedy.

Meanwhile more than a decade later I've still got a halal cart two blocks away and a really huge mosque pointed weird across the Manhattan blocks another block down and I have worked with Muslims, Hindus and -

Do you get a piece of how pathetic this is? Right-wingers are afraid of everything in goddamn sight.

Igor Antunov wrote: It means more opportunities for you to be able to punch people on the basis of what they say in response. I doubt you care about the migrant either. They're just useful to you. You're in it for your politics, which to you are absolute and universal. Sure, you can call that decent. I would call it signalling your virtues for short-term self validation. Because nobody is going to benefit from this long-term. Not even you. Feels over reals.

I don't even think you believe this about me since you fell on a stupid meme at the end. And I love alt-right - er, sorry, "not-alt-right" - wingers complaining about "virtue signalling." Because who the fuck is reading this? Who the fuck am I "signalling" to? Do you get how dumb that idea is, that somehow I'm signalling for my profit some...thing, by being like this?

And yes I do care about "the migrant" (singular in your sentence) because I apparently listened to too much NPR as a kid, watched too much Sesame Street, and became an Eagle Scout, and something about generosity and aid is a part of being what I call a decent fucking human being.

Or did you not notice what those 12 words I listed starting with "trustworthy" and ending with "reverent" were? I'll give you a hint: I got a significant award for being a part of it, and I told you what it was about in the last paragraph.

Oh wait. You think "virtue signalling" includes this, so you probably have a hard time with this. I'm an Eagle Scout and those twelve words are the Scout Law.

Sorry you have a problem with them.

Igor Antunov wrote:I mock certain immigration policies. I am 100% behind responsible, highly vetted immigration. We only got into Australia because both my parents have technical degrees. Predictably, we are a success here, not because we were simply allowed here, but because we worked our asses off, because we brought the strengths of our culture with us. High qualifications are not a guarantee, but they are a sign of a responsible entity that can accomplish things. It's the best way to gauge new arrivals. To filter them. For now it is the only way.

Aaaaand...Igor is still living on his parent's dime I think, eh?

And honestly given the corruption involved with eastern european immigration to western countries I'm honestly not sure I believe that they got in through hard work and success and not bribery.

I'm not saying it's you and your parents that did that but you could understand my skepticism. After all, you have the same skepticism of Islamic immigrants so it's only fair.

Igor Antunov wrote:Can you say the same about the recent 5,000 Syrian arrivals in Sydney's Liverpool? Crime rates have sky rocketed

So go back to Russia?

Seriously - I do not understand how you can be sooooo attached to Russia and China and yet live in Australia.

Oh! Wait! I've got it!

It's a liberal society, your daddy's money, and hey, there's success and money there! In spite of all those brown people around!

The woman who died when a car rammed into a group of people protesting against a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was named on Sunday as Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old legal assistant with a law firm in Virginia, who repeatedly championed civil rights issues on social media.

Heyer, whose Facebook cover photo read: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”, worked for the Virginia law firm Miller Law and regularly drew attention to cases of police malpractice and racism, as well as posting her support for Bernie Sanders in his presidential campaign....Her boss at the law firm said she had attended Saturday’s counter-demonstration to send a clear message to neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan sympathizers that people in her hometown abhor their views. She was “a very strong, very opinionated young woman” who “made known that she was all about equality”, Alfred Wilson told Reuters. ...Heyer’s second last Facebook post, in October 2016, was a link to a site urging those fearful of Muslims to meet and befriend one. Since it was still open, hundreds of people added comments to it, most expressing admiration for her and condolences to her family, but a few – who instantly attracted outraged reactions – blamed her for being at the rally.

Terror is of course as old as the hills. Even animals use terror in an instinctive way to acieve their goals. All the great powers have used terror or allied with people to implement it on their behalf. For example before 2011 the EU outsourced part of its immigration control to Gadaffi's terror regime.

However Marxism and Islam are not just ideologies whose proponents sometimes use terror. They are based on terror. There very foundation is terror. Their raison d'etre is terror. The radical left supported greater suffrage, but when universal male suffrage was achieved in the French Revolution the far left realised it needed to overthrow democracy not just the Authoritarian monarchies. Marxism is about overwhelmingly Middle Class and Upper class fanatics ruling over all classes through terror. Marxist rule in the name of the working class in the same way the medieval Catholic Church ruled in the name of the poor.

First they came for the Octobrists but I was not an Octobrist so I did nothing.Then they came for the Kadets but I was not an Kadet so I did nothing.And then Trudovics, Right SRs, Right Mensheviks, Anarchists, Maknovists, Left SRs, Christians, Menshevik Internationalists, Workers Opposition, Trotskyists, Zinovievists, Bukharinists, Kirovists, Yagodaists, Yezhovists.

There is murder and there is terror. This is one case of man slaughter by a White man. He broke after being the victim of days of leftie violence and infringement of his human rights. Black men commit a lot more murders than White men proportionably. Muslims far more than even Blacks. White murder is not a priority problem. Left and Muslim violence is serious terror, not because of the number of people it kills but because of the huge amount of censorship that it enforces. Nazi / White supremacist violence is not. No one censors themselves bacause they fear the Nazis. WIG (White Infdel, Gentile) terrorism is also not a serious problem.

There is no objective divide between war and genocide; self-defence and war; possessions and property; or property and theft

Lexington wrote:A few days ago an extremist ran a car into a crowd, injuring many and killing one. In America.

Now a few days before that I was conversing with a self-professed fascist in the Gorkiy thread about whether or not they would pull the trigger if the gun was pointed to my head in the glorious revolution to come. It turns out "hesitation" is the thing.

Now the funny thing is that you can LARP online about fascism and communism and all varieties of extremism but sometimes someone takes you seriously. And then they run their car into a crowd and kill people because they actually think they're carrying out the glorious extremist revolution.

So do you see the point here, about the seriousness of the thing? I realize it's easy to complain and perhaps march somewhere but when you use violent rhetoric on the internet or in real life sometimes it inspires someone to actually do the thing you are unwilling to do.

And then people die. You've got blood on your hands.

How do you feel about Islam, Lex? Do all muslims have "blood on their hands"?

Calling reality a conspiracy is a typical emotional word choice to raise emotion over reason. Why does the left insist upon loaded words instead of reason? Rhetorical question. I read about it in propaganda 101.

I dream of the United Citystates of Earth, where each Citystate has a standardized border such as one whole degree of Latitude by one whole degree of Longitude.

One Degree wrote:Calling reality a conspiracy is a typical emotional word choice to raise emotion over reason. Why does the left insist upon loaded words instead of reason? Rhetorical question. I read about it in propaganda 101.

Oh please.

You said that, "In the US only the right are considered terrorists."

This implies some kind of conspiracy where (((some people))) are dictating to everyone some kind of rhetoric or reality.

Perhaps you can clarify if you're going to be so bratty about your Nazi super-friends.

I have a lot of thoughts on a lot of things in this thread and some of it touches on things that I haven't really come out and dealt with or ordered in my own thoughts so this post might be a tad disjointed.

1.) There is definitely a huge difference in how the US deals with right wing vs. left wing extremism. Some of this is a holdover of the red scare when communism was a severe threat to the United states and is in some sense understandable (if unfortunate), and it's waning with newer generations growing up in a world where existential threats and potential extinction from nukes are less on the table and communism is a smoldering wreck as a political movement vs. global liberalism.

Even more than that though right wing radicalism is tolerated because the US has a very long history of reactionary radicalism that we never managed to stamp out. There are huge numbers of people in the US that sympathize with some form of right wing radicalism or another, the republican party has been dog-whistling racism since nixon. Now we have a president whose pretty overtly a racist, and there are racist elements to the democratic party and even (IMO) in a portion of the progressive movement that wants to outright ignore racial issues and pretend only addressing economic issues will some how make racial issues disappear. (Personally I think both need to be addressed, and are indeed connected, but you cannot ignore racial divides and ever hope to deal with economic ones and vice versa)

Right wing extremism is in many ways much more acceptable to the average american and it leads to many people wanting it treated more lightly than "foreign" seeming extremism like Islamic violence and left-wing extremism. I mean for all I loath the right wing militia types who TiG mentioned they could also be members of my own family, many of them also have rather reactionary views on race and government.

To deny that right wing extremism is dealt with kids gloves just look at how we let NAZI's march around but then imagine a march in favor of sharia law or some such.

2.) I think Bulaba does make a very real point that liberalism is perfectly capable of political violence to pull other countries onto the "correct" political path. I favor a rather less bomb ridden approach to it but it isn't merely something that can simply stop but an inevitable outcome of economic and political forces. Markets always want to expand, not just capitalism markets either, I think it would be just as true under a socialist global economic system.

3.) I agree that most right wing and left wing extremists are just LARPing more or less. I also partly agree that there needs to be some coming to terms with reality for them. I will also point out that liberals are very much not LARPing and do a great deal more political violence than neoNAZI's and communists could ever hope to in this day and age. Though in the past they certainly were both more than happy to get just as bloody.

Liberalism cannot pretend to be higher by virtue of innocence than the far right or the far left, we can only claim to be far preferable to NAZI's and anarchists. Which I think is entirely true. I also think communism has fundamental problems that hobble it's ability to truly be the successor of liberalism in the world but for different reasons than the sheer antipathy I feel towards the far right and anarchists.

4.) I think Lexington has every right to dislike neo-NAZI's but should be fair in understanding that liberalism is no less fundamentally violent in it's beginnings. I also think it's fair for him to point out that if you want to escape liberalism then you have to fundamentally confront that it will not be done peacefully, which most on pofo admit.

5.) Left-wing extremism, which lacks the "Kill all the darkies" ideological planks is definitely something that can be dealt with more peacefully than right wing extremism. Frankly the viability of a communist movement in the west was largely crippled not by the aggressive campaigns against them (which did happen) but by liberal democracies putting out policies that protected workers and created welfare. Obviously some of that has been rolled back and communists would argue that this is an inherent issue with capitalism but left wing agitators could certainly turn liberal capitalist governments to have better policies. Something right wing extremism is fundamentally incapable of doing.

My point being that the far left can and should be dealt with far more gently than the far right, in no small part because left wing extremism is less consumed by aggression and violence. Left wing extremists do property damage and right wing extremists take over federal property and attack racial minorities.

Ultimately people who ardently believe that liberalism cannot exist long term because of it's own contradictions or think that capitalism is fundamentally immoral will never buy into a left-liberal project. I do however think that the ideas that could lay the groundwork for necessary ideological change, even fundamental change, for that someday when the economy can not truly function as it does now for either reasons of fundamental flaws in the system or just some sort of post-scarcity, should be far more accepted than the ideas that lay the ground work for genocide, racism, and a turning back the clock to a mythical past.

6.) All that being said, I do think that some form of liberal capitalism is the most flexible and best ideological structure for our current society and technological level. I have my own ideas for how that project should proceed but I also think it's the least worst option at hand. Political violence against it should be opposed, not just for moral reasons against political violence, or moral reasons against what these people would do if they somehow won, but for the purely practical reason that human advancement will not be improved by the wholesale destruction of the global system.

The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is.

The Immortal Goon wrote:Don't forget that the Muslim terrorists are rightwing as well.

Are they? Why?

On the one hand: - they don't like usury, hedonism or porn. - don't like individualism, free speech or thinking for yourself. That's all liberal capitalist stuff and liberal capitalist stuff is "right wing".

On the other hand:- they hate jews worse than Nazis do. Big fans of Hitler. Nazi are "right wing" apparently.- and the nazis liked them back, literally wishing Christianity was bit more like Islam.

I don't think they fit that well in the rather contrived, arbitrary and excessively simplistic left-right political model. Then again nobody does.

This implies some kind of conspiracy where (((some people))) are dictating to everyone some kind of rhetoric or reality.

Perhaps you can clarify if you're going to be so bratty about your Nazi super-friends.

Hate crimes are almost never attributed to minorities. If a black person kills 3 people, it is a crime. If a white person kills 3 people then it is likely it might also be listed as a hate crime and/or terrorism. This distorts the reality. White groups in the US are automatically listed as hate groups. Black groups are not. Now, why am I using race? Because white groups are always considered on the right and Black groups are considered on the left.

Edit: I just saw @mikema63 post. I will admit he has some good points about the far right, but they really should not be a factor if people return to reasonable arguments like he is doing.

I dream of the United Citystates of Earth, where each Citystate has a standardized border such as one whole degree of Latitude by one whole degree of Longitude.